Matthew Culley, in his 2016 post about the proposed Glacier Ridge Wind Farm in Barnes County N.D., brought up a lot of interesting points regarding conflicts with a shift towards a wind-dominant power supply. Matthew introduced the project, described the immense (1000 GWh) wind resource available to North Dakota, and the state’s success in harnessing this resource. However, there was some concern among the state Public Service Commission that the intermittent nature of wind power would pose a threat to grid stability when contributing significant (30%) proportions of the states power. As renewable energy continues to improve and constitute larger and larger portions of our energy supply I think this is a really important point. If we, at some point in the future, want the majority of our energy to come from renewable sources, we need to think about how we can overcome the intermittent issue. Matthew gave 3 solutions to this problem and I think that an update on the project itself and the feasibility of these stability measures would be useful.

The Glacier Ridge project, which was jeopardized by the permitting process and grid stability concerns at the time of Matthew’s post, was approved for its second and final phase in July of 2017. In light of the project’s progress, measures combating the instability of this energy resource are more important now than ever. As such, an update on the status of the wind-forecasting systems highlighted in Matthews post would be a practical contribution to this discussion.

According to a new paper published in May of 2018, authored by Notton et al., “forecasting should be the first response to manage the variable nature of solar or wind energy production, before the more costly strategies of energy storage and demand response systems would be put in place”. According to the review, current state-of-the-art forecasts are likely to achieve most of the economic benefits possible and that the interest for forecasting is increasing even for small or medium ISRES (Intermittent and Stochastic Renewable Energy Sources). This indicates that regardless of the scale of installations, forecasting, rather than storage, is the most feasible option. Says Notton et al., “Energy storage development needs specific operating strategies for an optimal management which cannot be developed without a good knowledge of the future input and output energies”. In summary, the forecasting technologies discussed by Matthew in his post continue to improve and further analysis suggests that they are our best bet when future energy costs and demand are unknown.

]]>Response: Is Banning Plastic Straws a Viable Solution?http://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2018/07/26/response-is-banning-plastic-straws-a-viable-solution/
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 01:15:55 +0000https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/?p=4085An interesting point is brought up by Bobby in the original post regarding the plastic straw debate. Yes, they end up in our oceans and are harmful to marine organisms but they are also necessary for the aid of those living with disabilities. Alternatives to plastic can still be hazardous to those who need straws, can be lower in quality, and are generally more pricey. The straw ban may even have economical issues- bubble tea shops in San Francisco rely on the use of straws to consume their product and are scrambling to find solutions for their stores if the straw ban gets enacted (Kauffman, 2018). So maybe a plastic straw ban is a little extreme, at least until we find a suitable replacement.

The major issue is that we don’t have a sustainable replacement, at least not now. Most biodegradable straws are made from polylactic acid (PLA), a material that can only be broken down under high heat (Kauffman, 2018). This means that the straws need to be sent to an industrial compost facility in order to be degraded. Many towns do not have these composting abilities, much less the ocean. These straws would continue to remain a threat if they entered the oceans. There are other materials available to create bio-degradable straws but they are less developed and more costly.

However, I believe that plastic straws might not even be the most detrimental source of ocean pollution. A team of scientists analyzed the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to understand what plastics it is composed of and found that fishing gear made up the majority of this trash. Fishing gear in particular has a detrimental effect on marine organisms because it is designed to trap them, preventing escape and increasing their chances of injury or death.About 46 percent of this garbage were fishing nets alone (Parker, 2018). This didn’t even account for other fishing gear, ropes, traps, and crates which also made up a significant portion. Another 20 percent of the trash pile consisted of debris from the 2011 tsunami that hit Japan (Parker, 2018). However, this only represents ocean surface pollution and even more plastic is predicted to be within it’s depths.

The straw ban generates a lot of issues for many businesses and folks living with disabilities and it may not even reduce a significant amount of ocean plastic pollution. While I fully agree that we should opt out of straws when we are able, this is also a difficult practice to monitor. As of now, the best solution would be to provide straws on request instead of enacting a full ban. This is quite a disappointing issue but hopefully a technological breakthrough will help solve this problem.

]]>EPA Activity Under Pruitthttp://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2018/07/25/epa-activity-under-pruitt/
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 03:52:53 +0000https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/?p=4069Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator under the first two years of the Trump administration, has had significant influence on energy and environmental policy in the United States. While many people applaud his legacy of roll-backs believing that these rules hinder free-market development, there are many consequences for the renewable energy industry, human health, and environmental systems. The EPA goals have changed in many ways under Pruitt’s reign and it’s important to understand the variations.

Photo by Gage Skidmore.

With Pruitt actively advocating against climate change measures, the EPA climate change website has been scrapped. Instead of normally providing data and information regarding the mechanisms of climate change, the page is being “updated” to represent the new EPA priorities and has been doing so for at least a year and a half. This seems rather questionable, as climate change is regarded as a very prominent issue by almost every other nation. It is no shock then that Pruitt also played a role in Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord (Greshko et al, 2018). While many people doubted that the goals set forth by the PCA were attainable in the near future, the accord at least signified a global agreement to recognize climate change as major world issue. The United States withdrawing from this sends a message to the world that we may not be taking climate change seriously.

Many other EPA policies have been delayed or scrapped under the Pruitt administration- the Clean Power Plan is one such example. The plan restricted carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants to encourage states to convert to clean energy sources. Pruitt announced plans to repeal this legislation in late 2017 and the process of rescinding it is in action (Greshko et al, 2018). There are talks of a replacement plan but nothing is set. Pruitt has also criticized fuel emission standards set by the Obama administration, claiming them to be too high and unrealistic. While automakers have pushed for new emission standards, they have not yet been changed (Mendolia et al 2018). However, states have the ability to waive for higher regulations and the automobile industry still has to cater to the global market, accounting for European countries with higher emission standards. Pruitt’s standards may not make a large impact on the energy efficiency of vehicles but will likely prevent America from being a global leader in this issue.

Pruitt has declared a two year suspension on the Clean Water Rule, a 2015 policy that protects drinking water by limiting runoff from fertilizers and pesticides (Davenport, 2018). He also denied the banning of pesticide chlorpyrifos, despite EPA studies showing that this a toxic chemical with no safe exposure levels (Mendolia et al, 2018). He halted methane regulations and delayed a rule dealing with acceptable ozone standards before a judge ordered otherwise (Greshko et al, 2018).

Pruitt has also made some structural changes to the organization such as the barring of many scientists in academia from participating on advisory boards for the EPA. Industrial scientists, who are regulated by the EPA, are still allowed on the board and have actually increased their presence due to the restriction on university members. Many of these industrial board members include pesticide manufacturers and coal producers (Economist, 2018). He has also included other measures, including policy that only allows the agency to use studies with public data. While this may seem like a great idea having transparency in science, many pollution and climate change studies use confidential health data to decide how products, such as coal or fertilizers, are linked to respiratory diseases and cancer (Economist, 2018).

Overall, the EPA under the Pruitt administration has taken steps backward in terms of clean energy, public health, and trust in science. Andrew Wheeler has since taken over the EPA after Pruitt’s resignation and no one is fully sure where he will lead the agency. He may very well continue in Pruitt’s footsteps since he also has questioned the reliability of climate science and has past experience lobbying for coal companies (Dlouhy, 2018).

Sources

Greshko, M, and L Parker. “A Running List of How President Trump Is Changing Environmental Policy.” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 23 July 2018, news. nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

Davenport, Coral. “E.P.A. Blocks Obama-Era Clean Water Rule.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/climate/trump-water-wotus.html

“Scott Pruitt Embarks on a Campaign to Stifle Science at the EPA.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 26 Apr. 2018, www.economist.com/united-states/2018/04/26/scott-pruitt-embarks-on-a-campaign-to-stifle-science-at-the-epa

Germany has always been a leader in renewable energy technology. Due to this dedication, they were able to institute what is now the 9th largest offshore wind farm by nameplate capacity, BARD Offshore I. BARD Offshore I is an offshore wind farm developed by Bard Engineering GmbH in the German North Sea which consists of 80 turbines, each with a nameplate capacity of 5 MW. This leads to an overall installed capacity of 400 MW (BARD Offshore 1 Offshore Wind Farm). The site spans an area of 59 km2 about 101 km from the shore, with the turbines placed on grounded tripiles in water that is approximately 40 meters deep (BARD Offshore 1 Offshore Wind Farm).

Cost:

The project is stated by 4C Offshore to have a cost of 2.9 billion Euros, which is an extrapolated estimate for capital expenditure based on UniCredit’s Summary Note from January of 2012. UniCredit and the European Investment Bank were the two players who were able to finance the endeavor and kickstart the project and, as of March 2018, there are rumors that Ocean Breeze Energy GmbH & Co. is attempting to sell the wind farm for 1 billion Euros. Due to such a heavy initial investment, Hirtenstein notes that after an unexpected restructuring early in the sites history, the asset was transferred to the Italian bank due to financial inadequacies. The farm has been operational since it’s completion in 2013, meaning that 16 years still remain on the original power purchase agreement made with the German government, which could provide the stable cash flows associated with contracted electricity sales (Hirtenstein, 2018). Although many projects are adequately planned financially, it appears as though there is a trend amongst advancing renewable energy technology in particular of project or even business failure due to a lack of funds. Even in a country like Germany, a renewable energy leader, unplanned expenses can easily derail a project.

In terms of the effects of the offshore wind farm on the community, BARD Offshore I is able to power 283,302 houses annually (BARD Offshore 1 Offshore Wind Farm). Note that this statistic may not translate directly across the world as the homes powered annually is directly correlated with the annual consumption per capita, which differs across nations. Additionally, 4C Offshore stated that the farm led to reductions of 572,554 tons of carbon dioxide and 13,315 tons of sulfur dioxide. It would be safe to assume that these statistics are similarly based upon the specific metrics in Germany. Although these statistics are not expected to be exact, it is important to keep in mind that consumer behavior may change as a result of outside influences such as a change in the source of electricity. Such influences may lead an individual to become aware of the importance of renewable energy and energy conservation and thus make the conscious decision to decrease their energy usage.

Environmental Impact:

In terms of environmental conditions, the turbines at BARD Offshore I have many of the same effects as any other wind farm. The construction stage of the project lasted for more than 2 years, leading to decent exposure to marine organisms (BARD Offshore 1 Offshore Wind Farm). As opposed to the classic monopile configuration, each turbine now calls for three steel beams to be pile driven into the ocean floor, increasing overall surface area affected. This stage of the offshore wind project would constitute the largest concern in terms of underwater noise as the pilings would have to be embedded into the sea floor. This process was expected to produce more than the ambient noise level of 105 dB anywhere within a 20 km radius. Based on the environmental impact assessment conducted by Arcadis, the decommissioning phase would present almost identical impacts as the construction phase but at considerably lower intensity.

Once operational, the issue of underwater noise would still exist but to a lesser extent, with variations in marine organism reactions that is not possible to project with accuracy (Environmental Impact Assessment – Offshore North Sea Power Wind Farm, 2011). Collision casualties from bats or sea birds would, similar to any onshore wind farm, be an issue worth exploring, especially given the massive amount of surface area consumed by BARD Offshore I. Even without direct strikes, an offshore wind farm can affect both fish or bird migration patterns and the cumulative impacts between multiple wind farms can expose a synergistic relationship (Vaissiere et al., 2014). Vaissiere et al. inquires about the environmental impact assessment at its core due to the fact that despite impacts on marine organisms, biodiversity offsets haven’t yet taken hold. If carbon offsets are able to compensate for the weaknesses of fossil fuel energy generation, then EIAs should exercise the power to mitigate and make up for the shortcomings of offshore wind energy.

While the original, 2 turbine, 4 MW offshore wind installation off the coast of Blyth, UK has been scheduled for incomplete decommissioning as of January, 2017 (4C Offshore, 2018) due to mechanical and cable failures, the Blyth Offshore Demonstrator Project – Array 2, a 41.5 MW installation is officially operational as of June, 2018 (4C Offshore, 2018). The Blyth Offshore Demonstrator is owned by EDF Energies Nouvelles, a subsidiary of EDF Group, and is being constructed by EDF Energy Renewables, a 50:50 joint venture between EDF Energies Nouvelles and the UK company, EDF Energy. The installation consists of 5 MHI Vestas V164 8.0 MW turbines. These incorporate a power mode uprating to 8.3MW – the largest currently available (EDF, 2017). The installation is located 6.4 kilometers off the Blyth, UK shore. The water depth at the installation site is 29-42 meters. The cost of the project was about 145 million pounds or 192 million USD, approximately 36% of which was spent in the UK. The 5 turbine system produces enough energy for 34,000 homes and save approximately 58,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year. The project incorporates a host of innovations in the foundation process and the use of a 66 kV cable, the details of which will be discussed later.

History and Recent Developments:

Following approval and lease acquisition from The Crown Estate by EDF Energy Renewables in 2015, permitting, consent acquisition, site investigation, procurement, and seabed preparation, all five turbine foundations were fully installed as of August 18th, 2017 (4C Offshore, 2018). Following turbine and cable installation over the course of September through November the installation was producing power as of November 20th, 2017 (4C Offshore, 2018). A minor issue with a section of the cable array prompted the replacement of that section of cable on December 7th, 2017. The installation was fully commissioned on January 9th, 2018 and the Blyth wind farm was inaugurated by EDF Energy Renewables at the opening ceremony on June 22nd, 2018. The Blyth Offshore Demonstrator Project – Array 2 is expected to be decommissioned at the end of its 22-25-year design life in accordance with the terms of its Crown Estate lease (4C Offshore, 2018).

Innovative “Float and Submerge” Technique:

(Credit: BAM Nuttall, 2017)

As aforementioned, this project was the first to utilize a new foundation installation technique. This process, a gravity based foundation (GBF) design method, involves floating the foundations into position at sea and submerging them onto the seabed to provide the support structures that act as the foundations for the installation of the turbine towers. (EDF, 2017) It is the first time this method has been used for offshore wind turbine installation, having previously been used for offshore oil and gas extraction. Current methods of offshore wind deployment consist of the monopile method, in which a monopile is sunk 30-60 feet into the seabed, the gravity foundation method which utilizes a large concrete or steel base, and the tripod method, in which the piles are driven, again, deep into the seabed (Whitlock, 2017). The float and submerge method has the advantage of enabling the gravity base foundations to be towed out to sea by tugboats, rather than utilizing more expensive heavy-lift crane vessels. The design also reduces the need to use expensive marine equipment for the installation on the sea bed itself does not utilize a pile driving technique which has been proven a major source of auditory pollution in the nearshore and offshore marine environments (Peng et al., 2015).

Cable Innovation: From 33kV to 66 kV:

The project is also the first of its kind to utilize a new kind of export cable technology. From the Developers Brochure: “Blyth Offshore Demonstrator will be the first offshore wind project to use 66kV rated inter array and export cables to connect the turbines to the new onshore substation on part of the site of the former Blyth power station” (2017). In, “The Use of 66kV technology for Offshore Wind Demonstration sites”, Neumann et al. (2014) addressed the feasibility of developing a system implementing 66kV at the Blyth Offshore Demonstration site, citing several potential benefits. These include “the potential to reduce the amount of submarine cabling required, reduced losses in the connection at 66kV versus 33kV, and the potential to eliminate offshore substations in some cases.”

While intra-array 66 kV cable systems were not approved at the time this paper was written, their analysis of these benefits of the 66kV system is supported by other studies from organizations such as the Carbon Trust’s Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) which also showed that in addition to the benefits discussed by Neumann et al., 66kV systems “increase the power density through the cables and hence result in more cost effective cable systems” and that transmitting power back to shore at this higher voltage is also “a more efficient and cost effective option”. (Ferguson et al., 2012).

As with any offshore wind installation, rigorous environmental impact assessments were conducted before and during commission of the project. According to the EDF Energy, “The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out by the former project owner NAREC included extensive site studies on marine ecology, birdlife, landscapes and seascape, commercial fishing and other environmental matters” (2017). According to Natural Power, a consulting firm hired by EDF Energy to conduct environmental impact surveys, “Natural Power has undertaken benthic and fish monitoring to update baseline knowledge of the environment before construction.” The firm also notes in the 2017 case study of the project, that “since consent was awarded, a Marine Conservation Zone has been designated (in part) for benthic habitats and this area includes the near shore section of the export cable route.”

Furthermore, in 2015, EDF Energy Renewables commissioned Newcastle University to “install C-pod devices at the site to monitor the vocalizations of some marine mammal groups” (EDF, 2017). These devices informed developers of what mammals are doing in the area and also provided information on the relative occurrence and distribution of porpoises and dolphins for monitoring. The devices remained at the site until 2018 (EDF, 2017). While sufficient, some recent studies suggest further monitoring could be useful in the determination of chronic environmental impacts on marine mammal populations specifically (Mann and Teilmann, 2013).

Investment:

The project is a 50:50 joint venture funded by both EDF Energies Nouvelles and EDF Energy (4C Offshore, 2018). The developers pledged approximately 36 percent of the construction cost were to be spent in the UK and a Blyth Offshore Demonstrator Community Fund was established to support local groups and charitable activities in the area. The project also played a role in testing and proving new and emerging offshore installation methods and technologies, encouraging investment in the sector (EDF, 2017).

]]>A Case Study: Kamisu Nearshore Wind Farmhttp://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2018/07/16/a-case-study-kamisu-nearshore-wind-farm/
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:53:25 +0000https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/?p=4048Japan has long relied on fossil fuels and nuclear power as their primary energy sources but have recently been moving more towards renewables. Japan has a significant amount of marine renewable energy potential considering their location as an island in the Pacific Ocean. The Kamisu wind farm was the first Japanese offshore wind farm and it paved the way for other offshore wind projects.

The Kamisu nearshore wind farm is located roughly 50 meters off the southernmost edge of the city of Kamisu, Japan in the Kashima-Nada Sea. It consists of seven turbines, each producing 2 MW, to total an energy capacity of 14 MW (4C Offshore, 2010). A second wind farm made of 8 wind turbines was built up in the same area only three years later due to the success of the first set of turbines. The same model of turbines was used, allowing for an additional 16 MW to be produced at the Kamisu wind farm (4C Offshore, 2013).

Copyright Wind Power Ibaraki

The local government chose a private, regional renewable energy company called Wind Power Ibaraki Ltd. to develop and maintain operation of the wind farm (JWPA, 2017). No information was found on the preliminary decisions regarding the project or finances, since many of the documents are in Japanese. However, according to METI estimates, development of a project of this size in 2013 would cost nearly 16 billion Japanese yen, with significant funding coming from the government (Carbon Trust, 2014).

An EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Law was established in Japan in 1999 but did not cover wind energy projects until 2011 (Carbon Trust, 2014). The first phase of the Kamisu wind farm became operational in 2010 and the second phase was already in motion, therefore the Kamisu wind farm was not required to undergo an EIA.

The major environmental impacts of offshore wind are generally noise pollution and EMFs (electro-magnetic fields) that may disturb marine organism behavior. Due to the close proximity to land, the impact of EMFs on marine life is reduced as compared to marine energy projects located further away. The Kashima port is also located nearby, with shipping vessels contributing to noise pollution. This fact may potentially cover up the operational noise of the wind turbines or just increase the overall noise pollution in the sea. No studies have been done to investigate this.

The turbines use a monopole foundation driven into the seabed to keep them steady, which is especially necessary since Japan is prone to tsunamis. The turbines are in four meter deep water, slightly shallower than most offshore wind turbines. They have 60 meter tall towers, with 40 meter blades, totaling a 100 meter height- a pretty standard turbine size (4C Offshore, 2010, 2013). Wind speeds in the located area are about 7 meters per second, suitable for 0-10 MW turbines (JWPA, 2017). No documentation was found on the installation process for this project.

The first seven turbines became operational in 2010, and the wind farm was extended in 2013. The project provides electricity to about 21,000 homes annually and has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by almost 43,000 tons each year (4C Offshore, 2010, 2013). While these numbers represent only a tiny fraction of Japan’s population and the world’s carbon emissions, it is still inspiring to see this progress.

The wind farm survived the 2011 tsunami that led to the Fukushima nuclear power accident. No damage was found on the turbines but they were forced to stop generating power due to issues connecting to the grid. They became fully operational again in 3 days (JFS, 2011). After this incident, the Japanese public’s trust of nuclear power became shaky and the government has reduced its use of this energy source. Hopefully, this will motivate the public to push for renewable energy projects.

The government has invested in many new offshore wind projects since the incident and in 2012, proposed construction of a larger wind farm offshore of Kamisu. This wind farm would consist of twenty 5 MW turbines, that would produce a total of 100 MW (JFS, 2012). No recent news has been reported, suggesting that the project is still undergoing assessment and licensing but wind power companies have already been chosen to develop the project and investors have agreed to take part (ORIX, 2015). This is an exciting advancement in the field of renewable energy that provides hope for cleaner and safer energy sources.

]]>Promise in the Belize Barrier Reefhttp://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2018/07/02/promise-in-the-belize-barrier-reef/
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 17:24:02 +0000https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/?p=4000Last Christmas I was falling over the side of a small boat off the coast of San Pedro, Belize. San Pedro is an island so small, its inhabitants don’t even own cars. Instead, everyone putters around in supped up golf carts, conducting their business. For most of them, that business is eco-tourism. The eastern coast of the island is dotted with dive centers, water sports shops, tour guides, etc. During my time there I dove 12 times. It was the most beautiful, bio diverse place I have ever seen, and I never wanted to leave. But after my 10 day stay I got in the island hopper and looked down at the black and blue reef, wondering if it would still be there when I came back.

Its been 7 months since I left the Ambergries Caye and I’ve really missed it. Luckily, I think it will still be there for me in the future because last week UNESCO announced the reef’s removal from the World Heritage Sites in Danger List. According to the organization, “the Committee considered that safeguarding measures taken by the country, notably the introduction of a moratorium on oil exploration in the entire maritime zone of Belize and the strengthening of forestry regulations allowing for better protection of mangroves, warranted the removal of the site from the World Heritage List in Danger”.

The site had been added on to the In Danger list in 1996 due to the threat of irreversible damage from coastal construction and oil exploration when seismic testing for oil was permitted just 6 miles from the site. Public outcry from Belizeans, half of whom rely on the reef for their livelihood, followed. This is because the reef represents a major contribution to the local economy. Eco-tourism, recreational scuba diving and snorkeling, recreational and commercial fishing, and civilian boat transportation all rely on the coral reef ecosystem and account for over 40 percent of the income on San Pedro.

Local efforts were supported by a coalition that included WWF, Oceana, and the Belize Tourism Industry Association. Over the last 18 months, Belize’s government has put in place protections to secure the Belize Barrier Reef from immediate threats, this according to the World Wildlife Foundation. These include a landmark moratorium on oil exploration that was adopted in December 2017, which made Belize one of only three countries in the world with such legislation (WWF, 2018).

“Belize has shown that it is possible to reverse nature loss and create a sustainable future.” – Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF-International

However, despite all the promise in Belize, I can help but report on what I saw there and what I know to be true about climate change, and add a dash of reality to the discussion. During my dives in the reef I saw some of the most beautiful fish, corals, sharks, an landscapes. But, I also saw white, dead coral everywhere. The temperature of our oceans are undeniably increasing, and with the increases come the death of coral, no matter how oil-free the ecosystem is. So while I’d love to pretend that the Belize Barrier Reef is totally safe and healthy, I cant ignore the larger, global picture. If the rising of sea surface temperatures is not mitigated this reef will return to its spot on UNESCO’s Sites in Danger list. We can’t lets milestones like these lull us into a false sense of security that prevents us from reaching new ones.

If anyone is curious, is some pictures form my trip this winter:

– – Owen Ruth

]]>How efficient are renewable sources of energy?http://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2018/07/02/how-efficient-are-renewable-sources-of-energy/
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:28:57 +0000https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/?p=4018Renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro, have been on the rise. In 2017, eighteen percent of energy generated in Texas was in the form of solar or wind and a few small towns there, such as Denton, are striving to rely solely on clean energy (1). This raises the question of whether the whole globe will ever be able to switch to complete renewable energy.

A solar panel system on top of Chase Bank Building in Denton, TX. Image from http://o3energy.com/denton.html

Part of this answer will depend on the efficiency of our energy technology. Our current system relies on the use of fossil fuels however, natural gas power plants are only around 42 percent efficient and coal burning plants are approximately 33 percent efficient (2). Because of this lack of efficiency, we burn through much more energy than we actually use. This suggests that if we switch our grid to renewables that we won’t need to produce as much energy as we currently do. However, is this really feasible? How efficient are our current renewable energy sources?

The efficiency of solar PV depends on the materials of the panels; the two most common types are crystalline silicon and thin film cells. Most of these solar cells have an efficiency of nearly 22 percent. More expensive solar cells have a higher efficiency and many types that are still being researched have yet to reach 15 percent efficiency (3).

The efficiency of different types of solar cells over time. From source 3.

Wind power, one of the cheapest forms of energy, provides a bit more hope. Wind energy efficiency averages around 35-45 percent (4). Theoretical limits described by the law of physics suggest a maximum efficiency of approximately 60 percent (5). This shows that there is room for improvement as we begin to draw more power from this source.

Copyright 2009 Land Agent Services LLC

Geothermal power plants produce electricity constantly and are generally more stable sources of energy. Despite their reliability, they are only about 12 percent efficient (6). Their low efficiency is often primarily due to system design in which the geothermal fluid is separated from the steam used to generate power unless additional technology is installed.

In conclusion, our current renewable energy technologies are not highly efficient but this doesn’t mean they aren’t still promising. We have an incredible amount of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power penetrating this earth right now and only a small portion of this energy needs to be utilized to power the globe.

]]>Response: Tesla’s New Master Plan and the Future of Electric Carshttp://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/2018/07/02/response-teslas-new-master-plan-and-the-future-of-electric-cars-2/
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:13:56 +0000https://coastalenergyandenvironment.web.unc.edu/?p=4017Will’s blog post has become a really interesting point of comparison after almost 2 years have passed. Looking back at what Musk’s most recent plan was back in 2016, I’m pleased to see many of the points coming to fruition now. First of all, Musk has been heavily investing in solar roof technology and development on the self-driving capabilities of Tesla cars has been a strong focus both for the company and for national news outlets (Etherington 2017). The second point in his second Master Plan, expanding the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments, has recently been announced. Tesla will not only continue the production of SUVs and sedans but will also begin producing electric pickup trucks, vans, and commercial semi-trucks while also bringing back a new and improved roadster (Etherington 2017).

While the Model 3 had a couple hiccups in reaching the consumer on the expected timeline, the efforts put forth by Tesla are not going unnoticed (Korosec 2017). Now with an affordable option on the electric car market, especially from a luxury and expert brand name, consumers options are increasing and so is general interest in electric vehicles. This interest is not limited to the consumer side of the equation. Just as predicted in Will’s blog post, large car companies have begun to invest more money in research and development surrounding electric vehicles. With an electric semi-truck in the making, a significant proportion of driving miles in the United States can now be made without insane emissions, but it’s not that simple (Korosec 2017).

One aspect I believe is important to analyze when looking at electric vehicles is whether or not their time has really come. Currently I don’t see many charging stations while driving down the road, which would deter me from making a purchase. More importantly, looking at the concept of an electric car from a holistic mindset, the upfront cost can be incredibly high (depending on make and model), with uncertainty in where gas prices may go. The investment may not pay off for many years if gas prices unexpectedly drop, but in the same sense the investment may pay off early if gas prices rise. Similarly, there is a general green connotation with electric cars in that their use is less damaging to the environment due to decreased emissions. Although this may be true while you’re driving down the road, when an electric car is charging it requires energy. The overall emissions from an electric car should thus include the emissions from the respective process used to generate the electricity that charged the car. As of right now, much of the electricity generation happens from coal power plants, which have significant emissions. Although advances have clearly been made in the past 2 years, there are still areas of improvement, some of which are contingent upon large scale energy resource changes.

References:

Etherington, Darrell. “Tesla to Reveal a Pickup Truck within Two Years, and Final Model 3 Design in July.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 17 Apr. 2017, techcrunch.com/2017/04/13/tesla-to-reveal-a-pickup-truck-within-two-years-and-final-model-3-design-in-july/.

You probably have a friend that judged you for getting a plastic straw at a restaurant or blatantly told you not to get one. But why? If you’re not aware of the environmental effects from discarded plastic straws, the article: Why are plastic straws so bad for the environment?, would be a great precursor to understanding the background of the management decisions outlined in this blog post.

So far in 2018, three states have contemplated adding legislation regarding the use of plastic straws, but there is strong resistance. As of right now, this legislation is pending in both California and New York, and has already been shut down in Hawaii (Powell 2018). It makes sense that the states fighting against single use plastic straws are coastal states due to the dramatic impact they can have on marine environments. One alternative to an outright ban that some cities have used is to provide plastic straws only to customers who request one rather than giving them out to everyone as a default.

Before reading into this topic, I had always tried my best to avoid using plastic straws as much as possible. I figured that restaurants might save money while avoiding any negative backlash from the community from having legislation disallowing single use plastic straws, as it isn’t their decision. I now realize that I hadn’t considered the full lifecycle assessment of the product and that users may have reasons other than consumer convenience.

List of Current Progress in US Cities: The Pew Charitable Trusts

At its core, a solution to plastic straws is seen by some in the field of marine contamination as low-hanging fruit due to the unnecessary nature of a straw, at least for most consumers. However, there are those consumers who would be adversely affected by a ban on plastic straws, even if paper straws were instituted as a replacement: those living with disabilities. One opponent to the ban suffers from cerebral palsy and would thus be unable to drink independently without the assistance a straw provides (Powell 2018). In this way, the argument surrounding plastic straws centers around whether disability rights take precedence over environmental legislation. Although alternatives are available, paper straws have been noted to get soggy and become a choking hazard, and reusable or compostable straws are more expensive. This price aspect is important to note due to the fact that statistically, people with disabilities are more likely to be below the federal poverty level.

The possibility for opt-in proposals, however, still remains a possibility. Fast food chains and companies like McDonald’s use millions of straws daily, but stockholders of McDonald’s rejected a proposal to focus on efforts to find alternatives to plastic straws. The company claims that this is due to the fact that it is already invested in research for alternatives, likely due to the plastic straw ban in the UK leading them to invest in paper straws as a replacement (Stateline 2018). The problem arises that opt-in programs in many cities don’t affect takeout-only restaurants and only apply to sit-down restaurants.

Gaining buy-in for government regulation limiting the acceptable behaviors of individuals is never an easy task. In many situations, the convenience of a straw can make an experience such as drinking a Frappuccino with whipped cream that much more enjoyable and less messy. Therefore, the solution offered by a government ban may not be the right answer, although this is a sign that both consumer and government officials are aware of the problems posed by plastic straws, and the larger broad problem of marine plastic contamination.